Earth’s core has a differentiated core

Posted: February 10, 2015 by tchannon in Geology, Geomagnetism

Image

Photo by L. Brian Stauffer from press release

Earth’s surprise inside: Geologists unlock mysteries of the planet’s inner core
Thanks to a novel application of earthquake-reading technology, a research team at the University of Illinois and colleagues at Nanjing University in China have found that the Earth’s inner core has an inner core of its own, which has surprising properties that could reveal information about our planet.

http://news.illinois.edu/news/15/0209innercore_XiaodongSong.html

News comes thick and fast, end of January there was this about the earth’s core

Missing link in metal physics explains Earth’s magnetic field

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-01/ci-mli012215.php

What implications does this have for geomagetism in history or for that matter what has been assumed about core activity?

Post by Tim

Comments
  1. Truthseeker says:

    So we have an East Pole and a West Pole … ?

  2. Tim pity the papers are not available free for downloading.
    But here is one that is available http://www.principia-scientific.org/new-study-invalidates-kirchhoff-s-law-of-thermal-emission.html
    Some interesting thoughts about the sun and the make-up of its “surface” and core.
    I have seen before a video of an outburst (sun flare) previously and wondered about it falling back towards the “surface”. A different model could better explain some of the cyclical changes often mentioned on this site.
    There are many reasons to question the standard model and today’s model’s based on mathematical calculations and probabilities rather than considering actual measurements and what they mean in terms of errors and interpretations of so-called original laws which have been shown to work within set conditions. I have had doubts about the interpretation of Kirchhoff’s law as put out by many modern physicists and so-called climate scientists.

  3. oldbrew says:

    “We uncovered an effect that had been hiding in plain sight for 80 years,” Cohen said. “And now the original dynamo theory works after all!”

    Does it? Much of the radioactive material is way past its half life, as Miles Mathis has pointed out.

    Even this article entitled ‘Radioactive potassium may be major heat source in Earth’s core’ goes on to effectively admit its half-life was over a few billion years ago:

    ‘Gradually, however, the Earth would have cooled off and become a dead rocky globe with a cold iron ball at the core if not for the continued release of heat by the decay of radioactive elements like potassium-40, uranium-238 and thorium-232, which have half-lives of 1.25 billion, 4 billion and 14 billion years, respectively. About one in every thousand potassium atoms is radioactive.’

    http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/12/10_heat.shtml

  4. ren says:

    Martin Mason egriff5514 • 28 minutes ago
    Except that sceptics have always been denied the chance to publish in mainstream journals. That’s all ending now of course as more and more alternative outlets are publishing sceptical papers. The war on AGW is being won on sites like climate audit, WUWT, tallbloke, etc., where open discussion is possible, not in the controlled and Pal reviewed outlets. AGW science is being slowly dismantled and its advocates ridiculed. The politicians will eventually get it.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html#disqus_thread

  5. tchannon says:

    The magnetic field is lumpy Truthseeker. The surface magnetic field is split with more than two “poles”. The core is probably above it’s curie point.

    My take is more about the presence of material in more than one state within a moving magnetic system. We know nothing directly about the core and very little about materials under heavy pressure and temperature.

    Radioactivity?
    All of the active elements have a half life starting now, there isn’t a magic cutoff. The basic form is highly active elements decay highly fast, low activity carry on and on slowly.

    Given the material in the core is above it’s curie point. As the material cools it will transition. Effect on long timescales?

    So I think there are more questions than answers.

  6. wyoskeptic says:

    As I understand it, there are those who now state that the core is as hot as the surface of the sun.
    http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/154357-earths-core-is-much-hotter-than-previously-thought-hotter-than-the-surface-of-the-sun

    Obviously there is a lot of pressure, something like 3,500,000 atmospheres.

    The magnetic field of earth is caused by massive electrical current flows. Billions if not trillions of amps flowing in order to create that field.

    The core is composed of Iron and Nickel.

    If there is anything to what I have been reading about LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) is true, then beneath our feet we have all the potential for a rather large LENR reactor. High temperature, high pressure, electrical flows, all that is missing is hydrogen and you have the potential for fusion reactions.

    And where there is water, there is hydrogen:
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rare-diamond-confirms-that-earths-mantle-holds-an-oceans-worth-of-water/

    Now, regarding the Sun controlling earth temperature, if you have some method of the Sun inducing or influencing the current flows which drive the magnetic field of earth, you also have the mechanism to ramp up or ramp down extra heat by way of LENR (or the vigorously denied “cold fusion”.)

    There are those who deny that fusion could be occurring within the core / mantle of the earth; but if the core is almost as hot as the sun, has a high level of pressure and has a large electrical current flow, it is possible.

    Now even if this is not enough all by itself to account for all the issues of temperature swings from ice ages to interglacial warming periods, it could be a key factor in the development or nature of the PDO and the ENSO, even the NAO phenomena, either as a factor which strengthens the effects or else tends to steer the direction of the currents.

    Information about this is scant and difficult to track down. But if nothing else it might explain why the core has not cooled other than because of the fact that miles of dirt / stone / rock being a good insulator. And if there is transmutation of elements going on, if not in the core at least near it, it might explain radioactive elements in percentages higher than might be expected by the basis of the passage of time.

    However, I do not feel that convection alone is the answer to why there is current flow. There needs to be an additional element to prevent the fall off as time passes. Otherwise, as the core cools, the convection is reduced, which reduces the current flow, which in turn reduces heating from eddy currents, which in turn leads to more cooling.

    As radioactive elements progress through the half-life process, the amount of heat generated is reduced and thus with a cooling core, convection is reduced.

    There has to be something which adds enough more heat back into the situation to keep it near a steady state. There has to be something which has not yet been discovered.

  7. tchannon says:

    Excess nuclear activity has not been noticed either by people looking or those looking for weak signals extraterrestrial. I did look at look on mapping the earth emissions, wasn’t very interesting. Ballpark result for what has been assumed to be the situation.

    Too late to dig. Try this as a clue Lawrence Livermore, http://esd.lbl.gov/research/

  8. ren says:

    On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

    The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations….

  9. oldbrew says:

    wyoskeptic says: ‘There has to be something which adds enough more heat back into the situation to keep it near a steady state. There has to be something which has not yet been discovered.’

    That’s where the charge recycling theory comes in.

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/miles-mathis-the-cause-of-the-solar-cycle/

  10. p.g.sharrow says:

    I don’t get it! Are these guys angling for a new grant or pay raise? I don’t see new science or understanding here. Everything looks to have been known for the last 50 years. Seismic data, magnetic data, solid core within fluid core, lumpy magnetic fields etc. Maybe it is new to these guys! Much of modern press released scientific discovery seems to be local enlightenment. pg

  11. tom0mason says:

    @p.g.sharrow
    But now in this New World Order of Big Science all the data was virtualized on super-computers, so it’s now verified as the real truth.

    /sarcoff

  12. Berényi Péter says:

    There is even a fair chance the inner core is far from thermodynamic equilibrium, having a nuclear breeder reactor at its very center with some 4 TW power output. Marvin Herndon may be a maverick scientist, but his theory of planetary formation and structure, very different from the mainstream one, was never falsified.

    According to him Earth started as a Jupiter sized gas giant, its outer Hydrogen-Helium atmosphere blown away by a violent young Sun in its brief T Tauri phase, leaving just iron and rocks behind. At this stage the mix was not dominated by Oxygen, so Uranium had a chance to sink to the core.

    With the discovery of hot Jupiters the theory is gaining ground.

  13. p.g.sharrow says:

    The concept that the Earth origin as a Gas Giant is likely correct, but there is a large mistake in that above theory! Called Luna. Early in it’s youth this Gas Giant encountered a errant body that ripped it’s atmosphere and 2/3rds of it’s crust off to create our Earth and our moon Luna. This pair likely did not originate in their present orbit. I would say outboard of Mars, the Asteroid Belt is the best bet. Our Solar System shows the results of several encounters with Something Big!
    The present Earth is quite unique and not at all like it’s stony planet neighbors. pg

  14. kuhnkat says:

    OldBrew,

    what is the explanation for all those radioactive elements and beginning molten temps showing up in a cold coalescing mass per consensus theory?? I seem to have missed that part… 8>)

    http://milesmathis.com/core.pdf

  15. oldbrew says:

    Accretion theory is a bit mysterious, as Mathis points out.

    ‘ Accretion is a slow process, and even the “runaway accretion” can last 100,000 years or more, according to the theory. In a slow process of accretion, heat easily escapes. There is no possible mechanism for trapping that amount of heat.’

  16. kuhnkat says:

    and still no idea as to where all the radioactives come from…

    “Three, 80% of 1031 Joules comes from radioactive decay? That’s a heat content of 8 x 1030 Joules all from radioactive decay. Since the Earth is not a star, fusing elements, that heat must be from fission of elements there from the beginning. We are told that, “The major heat-producing isotopes in the Earth are potassium-40, uranium-238, uranium-235, and thorium-232.” So here’s a question for you: given that the Earth cannot have fused these large isotopes itself, and given that the Sun was forming at the same time as the Earth—and therefore could not have fused these large isotopes — where did they come from? To produce 8 x 1030 Joules of energy requires a huge amount of isotopes. Are we being told it all just drifted in from the nearest supernova?

    Now let’s check those half-lifes. U235—700 million years. U238—4.4 billion years. K40 1.2 billion
    years. Thorium232—14 billion years. Only the Thorium would persist at anything like original levels.
    About 1/5 would be gone. But half the U238 would be gone by now, 12/13ths of the K40 would be
    gone, and 85/86th of the U235 would be gone. So the current theorists must be telling us there was
    twice as much U238 in the past, 13 times as much K40, and 86 times as much U235.

    And, logically, if 80% of current heat is caused by radioactivity, and if there was so much more radioactive material in the past, the Earth must have had 20 to 50 times more heat from radioactivity in the past. Let’s use the lower number, to be generous to current theory. The Earth in the past would have had 20 times more heat from radioactivity, and 10 times more residual heat. That’s a total of 17 times more heat than it has now. That’s a heat content approaching 2 x 1032 Joules and an internal temperature of something like 180,000F. How can dust particles accreting at 1,500F create temperatures of 180,000F?”

    Was Al Gore closer than we thought??

  17. p.g.sharrow says:

    kuhnkat says:
    February 15, 2015 at 1:26 am

    Kind of makes one think the EX-sperts Sound like a bunch of former drips under pressure! 😎

    LENR points the way toward a new way of thinking.

    The dance of Hydrogen to Neutron to hydrogen is the key to understanding how the Universe is powered. pg

  18. oldbrew says:

    Berényi Péter says: ‘According to him [Herndon] Earth started as a Jupiter sized gas giant, its outer Hydrogen-Helium atmosphere blown away by a violent young Sun in its brief T Tauri phase, leaving just iron and rocks behind.’

    According to your T Tauri link at Wikipedia: ‘Most T Tauri stars are in binary star systems.’

    Another can of worms there😉